A North Shore man fears an open stormwater drain endangers his children, but officials say the water cannot be enclosed and he bought his property knowing about the overland flood plain.
Arturo and Maureen Gatmaitan are complaining about the situation on their Elliott Ave property in Bayview, near Glenfield.
They say the stormwater rises to alarming levels during heavy rain and turns from a slow, low flow to a raging river.
“My land is eroding and the health and safety of our young kids has been at risk for the last three years since I acquired this said property,” Arturo Gatmaitan said.
The couple have been discussing the problem with Auckland Council’s Healthy Waters department since 2022.
The homeowners said the only acceptable solution is for authorities to pipe the entire open drain.
They engaged barrister Patrick Senior to write to the council, saying the couple considers that anything less would not satisfactorily address the safety risks, particularly around the fast-moving water and the presence of an outlet pipe near their entrance steps.
They argued via Senior that the council’s role is to maintain public stormwater infrastructure in a way that protects the safety and assets of Aucklanders.
The open drain has visible inlets from other properties, and is connected to about 20 other properties and five public stormwater catch pits within Manuka Rd, Senior noted.
It is maintained by Downer for the council.
But council lawyer Dale Nicholson told Senior that authorities had no legal obligation to pipe the stream or stormwater.
The existence of the pipe outlet and inlet would have been clear to the couple at the time they bought the property in 2021, Nicholson said.
The flood plain and flood sensitive area would also have been clear on any land information memorandum they bought or viewed at that time.
The responsibility to ensure land is safe from hazards rests first and foremost with the property owner and there are simple steps they could take to mitigate or eliminate those risks, Nicholson said.
But as a sign of good faith, a $5000 payment was offered so the couple could fence the stream.
That offer was made without any admission of liability and would be subject to council viewing an acceptable quote that details the nature of the fencing, Nicholson wrote.
“The rear of the property is located in a depression, with an overland flow path running through it. Most of the backyard is in a floodplain and flood-sensitive area,” he noted.
The couple wanted the water to be fully enclosed in a pipe and Healthy Waters had explored the practicalities of piping the open drain.
“Piping of a stream is a non-complying activity under the Resource Management Act. To test the viability of this option, Healthy Waters has obtained pre-application advice from council’s planning and resource consent team on the likelihood of a resource consent being granted,” Nicholson said.
The initial advice was that resource consent for full reclamation would be difficult to support because:
Arturo Gatmaitan said there appeared no resolution.
“My family and I are not after the council’s money but we would like them to resolve the issue instead,” he said, defending his preference for a pipe.
He can get to his home without crossing the stream but said he had to “jump” the water to get to the piece of ground he owns on the other side.
He was reluctant to take the $5000 to fence the property so the situation had reached an impasse.
Anne Gibson has been the Herald‘s property editor for 25 years, written books and covered property extensively here and overseas.